Finder's Law Flow Chart

Can the true owner be found?

Yes: lost item is returned to the true owner

No: Armory v. Delamirie - the finder of a lost item is entitled to its possession about all others, when the true owner cannot be found

Where was the item found?

Attached to the property: 

Under the ground: Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co. - property owner has a stronger claim than the finder

Under floorboards of derelict building: Tamworth Industries v. Attorney-General - finder had a greater claim

In the mud: South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman - property owner has a greater claim than the finder

Unattached to the property

On the ground: Bridges v. Hawkesworth - finder has a stronger claim than the property owner

On the ground in the lounge: Parker v. British Airways Board - finder has stronger claim than property owner

On windowsill: Hannah v. Peel - finder has a stronger claim than property owner because of lack of control

Was there anything that reduced the finder’s rights?

Attached to property: indicates a level of control over the item by the property/property owner

Finder employed by property owner: South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman - property owner and employer has a greater claim. Elwes v. Brigg Gas co - property owner and employer had greater claim

Land derelict and lacking protection: Tamworth Industries v. Attorney-General - finder has greater entitlement

Did the finder take the item into possession?

Yes. 

Armory v. Delamirie. Finder has a greater claim.

No.

If seen but not possessed, the finder has no possessory rights

What level of control did the property owner or occupier have over the property?

Low

Tamworth Industries v. Attorney-General. Uninhabited, derelict, and open to the public. Finder has a stronger claim

Hannah v. Peel. While owning the property, never inhabited it and did not maintain it. Finder has a stronger claim

Mid

Bridges v Hawkesworth. Owned property and inhabited it, but open to the public. Finder has a stronger claim

Parker v. British Airways Board. Somewhat regulated but open to most. Finder has a stronger claim

High

Elwes v. Brigg Gas co. Brigg Gas co was only allowed on the property due to lease. Property owner has a stronger claim

South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman. Owned property and sought to maintain it. Property owner has a stronger claim

Manifest intention to exercise control?

Yes.

Elwes v. Brigg Gas co. Brigg Gas co. Owned property and leased it, not allowing public access. Property owner has a stronger claim

South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman. Owned property and sought to maintain it. Property owner has a stronger claim

No. 

Tamworth Industries v. Attorney-General. Uninhabited, derelict, public access. Finder has a stronger claim

Hannah v. Peel. Did not inhabit nor showed intention to exercise control. Finder has a stronger claim.

Bridges v. Hawkesworth. On the floor in a public space. Finder has a stronger claim

Parker v. British Airways Board. Somewhat regulated but open to most, making intention insufficient. Finder has a stronger claim